A Separate Peace

Published:Sotsial-DemokratNo. 56, November 6, 1916.

      Published according to theSotsial-Demokrattext.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,1964,

      Moscow,Volume 23,

      pages125-133.Translated:M. S. Levin, The Late Joe Fineberg and and OthersTranscription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      2002

      (2005).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

Russiaand Germany are already negotiating a separate
peace. The negotiations are official, and the two powers have already
reached agreement on the main points.

Astatement to that effect appeared recently in the Berne socialist
paper and is based on information in its
possession.[2]The Russian Embassy in Berne hastened to issue an
official denial, and the French chauvinists ascribed these rumours to
“German dirty work”, but the socialist paper refused to attach any
importance whatsoever to these denials. In support of its statement it
pointed to the presence in Switzerland of German (Billow) and Russian
“statesmen” (Stürmer, Giers and a diplomat who arrived from Spain), and
to the fact that Swiss commercial circles were in possession of similar
reliable information obtained from Russian commercial circles.

Ofcourse, deception on both sides is quite possible.  Russia cannot
very well admit that she is negotiating a separate peace, and Germany
cannot miss an opportunity to create discord between Russia and England,
irrespective of whether or not there are negotiations, and if so, how
successfully they are proceeding.

Tounderstand the question of a separate peace we must proceed not from
rumours and reports about what is taking place in Switzerland, which cannot
be effectively verified, but from indisputably establishedpolitical
factsof the last few decades. Let Messrs. Plekhanov, Chkhenkeli,
Potresov and Co., now cast in the role of Marxist-livened lackeys or
jesters of Purishkevich and Milyukov, try as they will to prove “Germany’s
war guilt” and that Russia is fighting a “war of defence”—the
class-conscious workershave not listened and will not listen to these clowns. The war was
engendered by the Great Power imperialist relations, i.e., by their
struggle for division of the loot, a struggle to decide which of them is to
gobble up this or that colony or small state.Twoconflicts are in
the foreground in this war. First, between England arid Germany. Second,
between Germany and Russia. These three Great Powers, these three great
freebooters, are the principal figures in the present war. The rest are
dependent allies.

Bothconflicts were prepared by thewholepolicy these powers
pursued forseveral decadesbefore the war. England is fighting to
rob Germany of her colonies and to ruin her principal competitor, who has
ruthlessly outrivalled her by his superior technique, organisation and
commercial drive—and so thoroughly that Englandcould notretain
her world domination without war. Germany is fighting because her
capitalists consider themselves—and rightly so—entitled to the
“sacred” bourgeois right to world supremacy in looting and plundering
colonies and dependent countries. In particular, Germany is fighting to sub
jugate the Balkan countries and Turkey. Russia is fighting for possession
of Galicia, which she needs, in particular, to throttle the Ukrainian
people (for Galicia is the only place where the Ukrainians have, or can
have, liberty—relatively speaking, of course), Armenia and
Constantinople, and also to subjugate the Balkan countries.

Parallelwith the Russo-German conflict of predatory “interests” is
another no less—if not more—profound conflict between Russia and
England. The aim of Russia’s imperialist policy, determined by the age-long
rivalry and objective international strength-ratio of the Great Powers, may
be briefly defined as follows: smash Germany’s power in Europe with the aid
of England and France in order to rob Austria (by annexing Galicia) and
Turkey (by annexing Armenia and, especially, Constantinople); and, after
that, smash England’s power in Asia with the aid of Japanand
Germanyin order to seize thewholeof Persia, complete the
partition of China, etc.

Forcenturies tsarism has been striving to conquer Constantinople and a
larger and larger part of Asia. Ithas systematically shaped its policy accordingly and has exploited every
antagonism and conflict between the Great Powers. England has resisted
these efforts longer, and with more persistence and vigour, than
Germany. From 1878, when the Russian armies were approaching Constantinople
and the English fleet appeared at the Dardanelles and threatened to bombard
the Russians if they dared enter
			    “Tsargrad”,[1]to 1885, when Russia was on the verge of war with England over division of
the spoils in Central Asia (Afghanistan; the Russian army’s advance into
the heart of Central Asia threatened British rule in India), and down to
1902, when England concluded a treaty with Japan, in preparation for the
latter’s war against Russia—throughout all theseyears.Englandwas the most resolute opponent of Russia’s
predatory policies, because Russia threatened to undermine British
domination over a number of other nations.

Andnow? Just see what is happening in the present war. One loses
patience with the “socialists”, who have deserted the proletariat to go
over to the bourgeoisie and talk about Russia waging a “war of defence”,
or to “save the country” (Chkheidze). One loses patience with sentimental
Kautsky and Co. and their talk of a democratic peace, as if the present
governments, or any bourgeois government for that matter,couldconclude such a peace. As a matter of fact, they are enmeshed in a net ofsecret treatieswith each other, with their allies, andagainsttheir allies. And the content of these treaties is not
accidental, it was not determined merely by “malice”, but by the whole
course and development of imperialist foreign policy. Those “socialists”
who hoodwink the workers with banal phrases about nice things in general
(defence of the fatherland, democratic peace)withoutexposing thesecrettreatiestheir owngovernments have concluded to
rob foreign countries—such “socialists” are downright traitors to
socialism.

TheGerman, the English, and the Russian governments only stand to gain
from speeches in the socialist camp about a nice little peace, because,
firstly, theyinstil belief in the possibility of such a peace under the present
governments, and, secondly, divert attention from these governments’
predatory policies.

Waris the continuation of policy. But policy also “continues”duringwar! Germany has secret treaties with Bulgaria and Austria
on the division of spoils and continues to conduct secret negotiations on
the subject. Russia has secret treaties with England, France, etc., andallof them concernplunderandrobbery, robbing
Germany of her colonies, robbing Austria, partitioning Turkey, etc.

The“socialist” who under such circumstances delivers speeches to the
people and the governments about a nice little peace resembles the
clergyman who, seeing before him in the front pews the mistress of a
brothel and a police officer, who are working hand in glove, “preaches”
to them, and to the people, love of one’s neighbour and observance of the
Christian commandments.

Thereis undoubtedly a secret treaty between Russia and England, and
among other things it concerns Constantinople. That Russia hopes to get
Constantinople, and that England does not want to give it to her is well
known. If England does give Russia Constantinople, she will either attempt
to take it from her later, or else will make this “concession” on terms
directed against Russia. The text of the secret treaty is unknown, but that
the struggle between England and Russia centres around precisely this
question, that this struggle is going on even now, is not only known, but
beyond the slightest doubt. It is also known that, in addition to the old
treaties between Russia and Japan (the 1910 treaty, for instance, which
allowed Japan to “gobble up” Korea and Russia to gobble up Mongolia), anewsecret treaty was concluded during the present war, directed
not only against China, but, to acertain extent,also against
England. That is beyond doubt, although the text of the treaty is
unknown. In 1904–05 Japan defeated Russia with England’s aid; now she is
carefully preparing to defeat England with Russia’s aid.

Thereis a pro-German party in Russian “governing circles”—the
Court gang of Nicholas the Bloody, the nobility, army, etc. In Germany, the
bourgeoisie (followed bythe socialist-chauvinists) has of late markedly turned towards a
pro-Russian policy, towards a separate peace with Russia, towards placating
Russia in order to strike with full force against England. As far as
Germany is concerned, this plan is clear and leaves no room for doubt. As
for Russia, the situation is that tsarism would, of course, prefer to smash
Germany first in order to “take” as much as possible—the whole of
Galicia, the whole of Poland, Armenia, Constantinople—“crush” Austria,
etc. It would then be much easier, with the aid of Japan, to turn against
England. But, apparently, Russia has not the strength for that. That’s at
the bottom of it.

Mr.Plekhanov,the ex-socialist, has tried to make out that the Russian
reactionaries are generally in favour of peace with Germany, whereas the
“progressive bourgeoisie” are in favour of crushing “Prussian
militarism” and sup port friendship with “democratic” England. That is a
fairy-tale suitable to the mental level of political infants. The fact is
that tsarismandall the Russian reactionariesandthe
“progressive” bourgeoisie (Octobrists and Cadets) want thesame
thing: rob Germany, Austria and Turkey in Europe, and defeat England
in Asia (so as to take the whole of Persia, Mongolia, Tibet, etc.). These
“dear friends” disagree only as towhen and howto turn from a
struggle against Germany to a struggle against England. Only about when and
how!

Thisquestion, the only one on which the dear friends differ, will be
determined bymilitary and diplomatic considerationsknown in fullonlyto the tsarist government; the Milyukovs and Guchkovs know
only a quarter of them.

Takethe whole of Poland from Germany and Austria! Tsarism isin
favourof that, but has it the strength? And will England allow it?

TakeConstantinople and the Straits! Crush and dismember Austria!
Tsarism is entirely in favour of that. But has it the strength? And will
England allow it?

Tsarismknows just how many millions of soldiers have been slaughtered
and how manymoremay be drawn from the people; it knows just how
many shells are being expended and how many more can be obtained (in the
event ofwar with China, which is threatening, and which is quite possible, Japan
willnotsupply any more ammunition!). Tsarism knows how its
secret negotiations with England concerning Constantinople have been and
are progressing; it knows the strength of the British forces in Salonika,
Mesopotamia, etc. Tsarism knows all this. It has all the cards in its hands
and is making exact calculations—insofar as exact calculations are
possible in such matters where that very doubtful and elusive element, the
“fortune of war”, plays so great a part.

Asfor the Milyukovs and Guchkovs, the less they know the more they
talk. And the Plekhanovs, the Chkhenkelis, the Potresovs know nothing at
all of tsarism’s secret pacts; they are forgetting even what they knew
before, do not study what can be learned from the foreign press, do not
examine the course of tsarism’s foreign policy before the war, do not trace
its course during the war, and are consequently playing the part of
socialist Simple Simons.

Iftsarism has become convinced that even with all the aid of liberal
society, with all the zeal of the war industries committees, with all the
help the Plekhanovs, Gvozdyovs, Potresovs, Bulkins, Chirkins, Chkheidzes
(“Save the country”, don’t laugh!), Kropotkins, and the whole of that
menial crowd are giving to the noble cause of producing more shells—that
even with all this help and with the present state of military strength (or
military impotence) of all the allies it can possibly drag and has dragged
into the war, itcannotachieve more, it cannot hit Germanyharder, or that it can do so only at excessive cost (for example,
the loss of ten millionmoreRussian soldiers, the recruiting,
training and equipment of whom would cost so many more billions of rubles
and so many more years of war), then tsarismcannot but seeka
separate peace with Germany.

If“we” go after too much booty in Europe, “we” run the risk of
utterly exhausting “our” military resources, of gaining almost nothing in
Europe and of losing the opportunity of getting “our share” in Asia. This
is how tsarism argues, and it arguescorrectlyfrom the standpoint
of imperialist, interests. It arguesmore correctlythan thebourgeois and opportunist chatterboxes, the Milyukovs, Plekhanovs, Guchkovs
and Potresovs.

Ifno more can be obtained in Europe even after Rumania and Greece
(from which “we” have taken all we could) have joined in, then let us
take what can still be had! Englandcannotgive us anything just
now. Germany will perhaps return to us Courland and a part of Poland,
certainly Eastern Galicia—which “we” particularly need for the purpose
of throttling the Ukrainian movement, the movement of historically hitherto
dormant people numbering many millions, for freedom and the right to use
their native language—and, very likely, Turkish Armenia also. If we take
thisnow, we may emerge from the warwith increased
strength, andtomorrowwe may, with the aid of Japan and
Germany, with a wise policy and with the further aid of the Milyukovs,
Plekhanovs and Potresovs in “saving” the beloved “fatherland”, get a
good slice of Asia in a war against England (the whole of Persia and the
Persian Gulf with an outlet to the ocean much better than Constantinople,
which is an outlet only to the Mediterranean and is guarded by islands
which England can easily take and fortify, thus depriving “us” of every
outlet to the open sea), etc.

Thisis exactly how tsarism argues, and, we repeat, it argues
correctly, not only from the narrow monarchist point of view, but also from
the general imperialist point of view. It knows more and sees farther than
the liberals, the Plekhanovs and the Potresovs.

Itis quite possible, therefore, that tomorrow, or the day after we
shall wake up and hear the three monarchs proclaim: “Hearkening to the
voices of our beloved peoples, we have resolved to endow them with the
blessings of peace, to sign an armistice and to convene a general European
Peace Congress.” The three monarchs may even display their sense of humour
by quoting fragments of the speeches of Vandervelde, Plekhanov and Kautsky,
such as: we “promise”—promises are the only thing that is cheap, even
in this period of soaring prices—“to discuss the question of reducing
armaments and of a ‘lasting’ peace”, etc. Vandervelde, Plekhanov and
Kautsky will run along and arrange their “socialist” congress in the same
cityas the Peace Congress; and there will be no end of pious wishes,
sentimental phrases and talk of the need to “defend the fatherland” in
all languages. The stage will be well set for concealing the transition
from an imperialist Anglo-Russian alliance against Germany to an
imperialist Russo-German alliance against England!

Butwhether the war ends in this way in the very near future, or
whether Russia “holds out” a little longer in her effort to vanquish
Germany and rob Austria more; whether the separate peace negotiations will
prove a shrewd blackmailer’s trick (tsarism showing England a draft of a
treaty with Germany and saying: “Either so many billion rubles and
such-and-such concessions or guarantees, or I sign this treaty tomorrow”),in all casesthe imperialist warcannotend otherwise
than in an imperialist peace,unlessit is transformed into a
civil war of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie for socialism. In all
cases, unless this happens, the imperialist war will result in the
strengthening of one or two of the three strongest imperialist
powers—England, Germany and Russia—at the expense of the weak (Serbia,
Turkey, Belgium, etc.), and it is quite possible thatallthree
robbers will become stronger after the war, having divided the booty among
themselves (the colonies, Belgium, Serbia, Armenia). The only argument will
be over the share each should get.

Inall cases, both the full-fledged and avowed social chauvinists,
i.e., the individuals who openly accept “defence of the fatherland” in
the present war, and the disguised, half-way social-chauvinists, i.e., the
Kautskyites with their preachment of “peace”in general,
“without victors or vanquished”, etc., will inevitably, unavoidably and
undoubtedly be fooled and discredited. For any peace concluded by the same,
or similar, bourgeois governments that started the war will glaringly show
the peoples what a servile role both, these types of socialists played in
relation to imperialism.

Whateverthe outcome of the present war, those who maintained that the
only possible socialist way out of it is through civil war by the
proletariat for socialism, will have been proved correct. The Russian
Social-Democratswho maintained that the defeat of tsarism, its complete military smash-up,
is, “in all cases”, the lesser evil, will have been proved correct. For
history never stands still; it continues its forward movement during this
war too. And if the European proletariat cannot advance to socialism now,
cannot cast off the social-chauvinist and Kautskyite yoke in the course of
this first great imperialist war, then East Europe and Asia can advance to
democracy with seven-league strides only if tsarism is utterly smashed and
deprived ofallpossibility to pursue its semi-feudal type
imperialist policy.

Thewar will kill and destroy everything weak, social chauvinism and
Kautskyism included. An imperialist peace would further accentuatetheseweaknesses, show them up in a still more despicable and
abhorrent light.

[1]Tsargradis the old Russian name for Constantinople.—Ed.

[2]Leninis here referring to theBerner Tagwacht, which published
the following articles on the Russo-German negotiations for a separate
peace: “Die Vorbereitung des Separatfriedens” (“Preparation of a
Separate Peace”) in its issue of October 11, 1916, No. 230; an editorial,
“Die Friedensgerüchte” (“Peace Rumours”), in No. 241 of October 13,
and a shorter item, “Zum Separatfrieden” (“On a Separate Peace”), in
No. 242 of October 14.